8. A decision-making tool for countries in the
Asia–Pacific region

Section 3.2 suggests that currently there is perhaps less merit in engaging with social
certification due to:

The lack of established schemes dealing with fish products.

Lower demand than in developed countries for environmental certification (from both
buyers/retailers and consumers). Note that supermarkets account for a dominant and
increasing
share of total fish sales in almost all developed country markets.

A perception that there is also low demand for such certification in developing country markets.

A number of steps are therefore outlined hereunder to assist countries in the
Asia–Pacific region to
make decisions about whether to engage with environmental certification and/or branding
initiatives.
This decision-tree is intended for use when short- to
medium-term net benefits are achievable (of course in
the long-term one would wish all fisheries to move towards sustainable exploitation and
resulting benefits).
An important point to note about the decision-making tree with regard to environmental
certification
is that the need for better fisheries management in fisheries which are currently
overexploited is taken as
a given. This paper is attempting to provide a tool for decision-making about the net
benefits
of certification, not of improved management. We would therefore argue that in cases
of overexploitation,
if improved management would/could take place without certification and there would be
no/few
market benefits (access or price), then certification should not be considered, but rather
improved
management put in place without any certification.

Step 1: Consider the reasons for certification or branding

Environmental certification

The individual fishery is already well managed and/or main competitor products are
certified;
certification would exploit potential benefits (market access/market price, and other
benefits such as improved
client relationships, niche marketing, and public relations, which themselves could be
expected to translate
into price or market access benefits). Go to Step 2

The individual fishery is not well managed and/or main competitor products are certified, but the fishery
is important economically/socially, and embarking on a certification process would help to
ensure sustainability and result in potential benefits (bio-economic benefits from more
sustainable fishery
that would otherwise not be realized, plus market access/market price). It is
realistic (based on
political realities, the extent of overexploitation, the size of the fishery etc.) to expect that the
necessary improvements in fisheries management could be achieved
in the short term, such that certification
would then be likely.

If yes, go to Step 2.

If no, stop the process, initiate longer term plans for improvement management and re-evaluate
after longer term improvements in management have begun to make meaningful changes.

Branding/quality schemes

Existing awareness of the product/species from the fishery/country by buyers/consumers is already
high and quality is perceived to be good. The product/species is important in
economic/social terms for
job creation and income generation. Potential appears to exist (i.e. the product/species
appears to
have unique characteristics that could be exploited) to use branding or quality marks to
realize
potential benefits. Go to Step 2

The product/species is important in economic/social terms for job creation and income
generation.
Potential appears to exist to use branding or quality marks to realize potential benefits,
but current
aspects potentially associated with the brand, e.g. quality, are poor. It is realistic to
expect that
improvements could be made in the short term, such that effective branding would be
possible, e.g. if the emphasis of
the brand is on quality, quality can be improved.

If yes, go to Step 2.

If no, stop the process and re-evaluate after longer term improvements have begun
to
make meaningful changes.

Environmental certification

Are products from the fishery being sold to countries/markets where there are certified
suppliers, or
there is likelihood of existing suppliers wanting to engage in chain-of-custody
certification? (This may
require consultation with suppliers.)

_____22 This should include both international, regional and domestic markets.

If yes, go to Step 3.

If no, stop the process and re-evaluate at a later date as supplier response to
environmental certification changes over time

Are products being sold into countries/markets that already demonstrate demand through
sales of
certified products from other fisheries, there is stated demand from supermarkets (see
Section 3.1) and/or
general consumer concern for environmental issues (see Section 4)? This may require
consultation with
existing retail/wholesale outlets in destination markets and literature reviews.

If yes, go to Step 3.

If no, stop the process and re-evaluate at a later date as market response to
environmental certification changes over time.

Branding/quality marks

Are products from the fishery/country being sold to countries/markets where consumers are
generally thought to be responsive to branding/quality, and where there is potential for
branding to
differentiate products from those of other suppliers/countries? This may require assessments of
macroeconomic conditions (e.g. economic cycles/depressions), price elasticities of demand,
consultation with retailers
and consumer surveys about demand for branding/quality marks, consideration of issues
related to
economies of scale, etc. Assessment of potential at this stage should carefully
include all the potential risk
factors and barriers identified in Section
7.2

If yes, go to Step 3.

If no, stop the process and re-evaluate at a later date as market response changes over time.

Steps 1 and 2 could be completed, at least in an initial and participatory way, during
the APFIC
meeting. The authors of this paper do not presume, based on the small
desk-study exercise to complete this
paper, to have sufficient information on fisheries/products in the Asia–Pacific region to
enable identification
of suitable candidates for certification/branding. We therefore suggest Table 4 as a
starting point for use
in the APFIC meeting. Additional rows could be added to the table as necessary based on the
views
of participants as to key requirements for either certification or branding. Then once
agreed,
participants from each country could insert a number of fisheries or products in the
columns, tick boxes where
these fisheries/products are thought to comply with the required characteristics and then
assess whether
the fisheries/products appear to be good candidates for certification or branding. As such
it would
represent the tentative completion of Steps 1 and 2, noting that additional research would
be required.

Step 3: Consider the type of certification/branding to be pursued

Environmental certification

Based on the species concerned, production method, views of buyers and a review of
certification requirements and likely costs, choose between:

The MSC

Friend of the Sea

Dolphin-free

MAC

ISO

US turtle-free

Others

Simply demonstrating sustainability to supermarkets or consumer guides which have their
own internal assessment processes, in an attempt to generate benefits

Branding

Consider whether branding:

Should be country-, region- or fishery-specific

Should be based on a product or a species

Should only emphasize quality, and/or other aspects, e.g. environment, social
aspirations, etc.

Step 5: Initiate the certification or branding process

Environmental certification and branding

This final step represents a crucial stage in successful engagement with certification or branding.
Too often in the fisheries sector, policy or management decisions are made, without
sufficient attention to
the detailed planning required for implementation. Key implementation steps should
include:

Conduct stakeholder analysis, i.e. who should be consulted, what do different groups
have
to gain/lose from the process, etc.?

Engage with scheme managers if using a third party scheme.

Specify details and standards of own scheme/brand.

Allocate sufficient budgets.

Plan timelines for all detailed activities envisaged.

Allocate responsibilities and tasks to individuals or organizations.

The five certification evaluation steps are presented in Figures 9 and 10.